Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

Just been reading about a case where it seems pretty clear that a man did something really terrible to his young child which resulted in her death. Wont mention details as its probably not allowed.
Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence?
Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.
As a supposedly leading nation, why is life so cheap here in the UK? If someone is guilty of a disgusting crime, why burden the tax payer housing and feeding them?
I'm truly happy we have fair trials etc but I do think the overall system is way too soft. Its an insult to victims and the tax payer.

Beyond doubt? So you believe we should have the death penalty as long as it's never used. No-one is ever guilty beyond doubt, even if they are caught standing over the bed with the knife in their hands covered in blood, and make a full confession. It is quite common for people to confess to crimes they haven't committed and be caught in situations that look terrible to an outsider even though they haven't done anything wrong. The phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".

Iím not entirely sure where I stand on the death penalty but as some point out they see it as revenge, what about life in prison without parole, is that also revenge? A person could easily be sent to prison and be innocent, should we therefore not send anybody to prison just in case?

Iím not entirely sure where I stand on the death penalty but as some point out they see it as revenge, what about life in prison without parole, is that also revenge? A person could easily be sent to prison and be innocent, should we therefore not send anybody to prison just in case?

So the evidence they do have is to be disregarded in case they canít find 12 people who havenít heard of the case? I imagine finding 12 people wouldnít be that difficult, not everybody follows the news or uses the Internet.

Innocent people will die in prison, thatís a given. Therefore the people who donít believe in the death penalty in case an innocent is killed surely shouldnít agree with prison Ďjust in caseí. What then do we do with criminals?

So the evidence they do have is to be disregarded in case they canít find 12 people who havenít heard of the case? I imagine finding 12 people wouldnít be that difficult, not everybody follows the news or uses the Internet.

Iím not entirely sure where I stand on the death penalty but as some point out they see it as revenge, what about life in prison without parole, is that also revenge? A person could easily be sent to prison and be innocent, should we therefore not send anybody to prison just in case?

If a person is sent to prison, should a mistake have occurred and their innocence is later proven, it can be rectified to some extent - although, depending on the length of their incarceration, it might only be a small blessing. However, there does seem to be a correlation between the unwillingness for authorities to re-examine new evidence in a case, and the person convicted of the crime being on death row or deceased. It's thus more likely that innocent people who have spent decades in prison at least get some time to live free among their families than a death sentence being overturned.

Life in prison can also offer other benefits for both the inmate and society. Criminologists have argued that prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment but not death are often more willing to agree to take part in studies that have helped to identify the characteristics of many types of violent offender. Gathering this data can be inavaluable in understanding violent crime and looking at how we as a society can better protect vulnerable people.

Some have theorised that even a whole life sentence offers an inmate hope (due to future law changes, for example), and while there is hope that they may be released in the future, in some cases there may be a desire to reform; or at the least, to deter others from making the same disasterous choices as they did. I think in various places in the US and Canada, they run schemes where people who have been sentenced to life - often for gang-related murder - have been part of programmes designed to keep young, vulnerable kids away from gangs.

Death row inmates, on the other hand, are often consumed with bitterness and anger. They know their life will end in jail and so only a few show a similar desire to turn their situation into a positive for others. It does happen but not as often.

Last edited by Lambyr; 05-12-2017 at 5:20 PM.

She would always like to say,
Why change the past when you can own this day?

Innocent people will die in prison, thatís a given. Therefore the people who donít believe in the death penalty in case an innocent is killed surely shouldnít agree with prison Ďjust in caseí. What then do we do with criminals?

Innocent people will die in prison, thatís a given. Therefore the people who donít believe in the death penalty in case an innocent is killed surely shouldnít agree with prison Ďjust in caseí. What then do we do with criminals?

Innocent people will die in prison, that!!!8217;s a given. Therefore the people who don!!!8217;t believe in the death penalty in case an innocent is killed surely shouldn!!!8217;t agree with prison !!!8216;just in case!!!8217;. What then do we do with criminals?

It makes sense to remove from wider society, punish through loss of liberty and attempt, where possible, to reform criminals for the wellbeing and safety of the public. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to do this but many things are an unfortunate necessity for the greater good.

Execution, however, is a choice. It is not needed as the option of imprisonment is available. It is a definite and final end to a process organised and administered by fallible humans. Studies continue to show it fails as a deterrent. In the US, studies have also shown the death penalty is disproportiantely applied to ethnic minorities and impoverished people.

And one could reasonably argue that choosing to punish somebody for killing by calling upon the state to kill them is a bit odd.

Last edited by Lambyr; 05-12-2017 at 5:30 PM.

She would always like to say,
Why change the past when you can own this day?

Iím not entirely sure where I stand on the death penalty but as some point out they see it as revenge, what about life in prison without parole, is that also revenge? A person could easily be sent to prison and be innocent, should we therefore not send anybody to prison just in case?

There needs to be a criminal justice system and the public needs protecting from people who will do them harm. Some offenders do need to go to prison for the rest of their lives because they will always be a danger. There is always the opportunity to release them if they are found to be innocent at a later date and it has happened before and will again.

However if you execute someone there is no chance of bringing them back. No chance of giving them their life back. That has happened too and I think it's a terrible prospect.

Itís an interesting point supersaver2 makes. If you donít believe in the death penalty just in case an innocent is killed how can you agree with prison when an innocent could be locked away for years? Yes a life sentence isnít as final as death but must be unbearable for the innocent person locked up for years. Why is the risk acceptable for one yet not the other? Being in prison for the rest of my natural days away from my family when I was innocent is unthinkable.

Itís an interesting point supersaver2 makes. If you donít believe in the death penalty just in case an innocent is killed how can you agree with prison when an innocent could be locked away for years? Yes a life sentence isnít as final as death but must be unbearable for the innocent person locked up for years. Why is the risk acceptable for one yet not the other? Being in prison for the rest of my natural days away from my family when I was innocent is unthinkable.

I imagine it would be unbearable, which is why it is very important that we uphold prisoner's rights to fair and humane treatment, provide adequate support for mental health issues and also ensure that should new evidence be made available, access to legal counsel, opportunities for retrial and, if acquitted, sufficient redress for victims of miscarriages of justice be made available.

It is a bit harder to do that when we've hanged someone or injected them with a lethal cocktail of drugs.

She would always like to say,
Why change the past when you can own this day?

Itís an interesting point supersaver2 makes. If you donít believe in the death penalty just in case an innocent is killed how can you agree with prison when an innocent could be locked away for years? Yes a life sentence isnít as final as death but must be unbearable for the innocent person locked up for years. Why is the risk acceptable for one yet not the other? Being in prison for the rest of my natural days away from my family when I was innocent is unthinkable.

If you're alive, at least restitution for lost earnings and compensation can be made when the miscarriage of justice is overturned, though of course there will be a contingent, usually the same ones calling for the death penalty and likening prisons to holiday camps, that will shout about how terrible it is that any kind of financial compensation is paid to those wrongly imprisoned.

I don't believe in capital punishment, but I do firmly believe in people like Hindley and Brady being locked up forever. Anyone who thinks that this is not punishment enough, only has to look at that vile pair, and others. When they are deprived of their liberty, and that until death, there should be no possibility of release if they are unmistakably guilty of the most terrible crimes. Brady of course, went mad inside. This happens because there is the inescapable knowledge that they will never be anywhere but behind the same walls, doing the same dreary things, having a complete non-life until the day they die. That is suffering and they deserve it. There should be no release for that category of criminal, not even if they develop a terminal disease. And they should be aware that the steady drip-drip of years will never end until they do, as they age and become steadily unhealthier in those conditions.

1. Often having a death penalty increases the level of crimes committed. This is due to the criminal committing a crime and thinking "Well if I get caught I am going to get the death sentence, so I may as well do my worst." You only have to look at the US and see that the death sentence is not a deterrent at all.

2. If someone is locked up as an innocent, it is entirely possible that new technology can uncover new truths which could prove their innocence. At least if they are in jail, they would then have a chance of being proved innocent.

The other thing is that it is not just the criminal or victim you need to think about here. It is the family and friends of such people - imagine if your brother was locked up for something and brandished a criminal when he was innocent? Your life would also be adversely affected, so justice for innocent people needs to be done where possible.

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.